Ubisoft Montreal CEO: “Audience is ready” for always-online consoles

But persistent connection needs to "provide clear benefits" to the player.

Over the past few weeks, the rumor mill has churned out many variations of its latest tidbit: that Microsoft's next console will require a constant Internet connection. Central to the debate over this possibility is whether console gamers and the Internet infrastructure they use is ready for such a requirement. In answer to that crucial question, Ubisoft Montreal CEO Yannis Mallat has offered a qualified "yes."

When asked about the prospect of an always-online console by The Guardian recently, Mallat said the final call would have to come from Sony and Microsoft. But he then went on to offer his own thoughts on the issue, saying, "I would say a lot of people are already always online through other devices—I would suspect that the audience is ready."

Ubisoft has of course takenheat in the past for using DRM that required some sort of Internet connection check to confirm the authenticity of players' PC games. More recently, Microsoft Studios Creative Director Adam Orth suggested customers complaining about always-online rumors should learn to "deal with it," a sentiment that garnered support from Gears of War designer Cliff Bleszinski (but Orth might have lost his job in the process).

Still, Mallat qualified his support for potential "always online" consoles by noting that the feature has to be both unobtrusive and actually beneficial for the end user. "As soon as players don't have to worry [about their online connection], they will only take into account the benefits that those services bring," he said. "And I agree, these services need to provide clear benefits. It's important to be able to provide direct connections between us and our consumers. Whether that's extra content or online services, a lot of successful games have that."

The extent that most gamers would actually have to "worry" about a stable Internet connection is a hotly debated topic. A 2010 study found that 27 percent of Xbox 360 owners in the US didn't connect their systems to the Internet, but that proportion has likely come down in the years since. Still, many gamers have concerns about the stability of those Internet connections or access to reliable broadband in certain geographic or practical circumstances.

Regardless, it's hard to see any kind of "clear benefits" to players from the prospect of a strict online requirement for an entire console. Remember, the system that's being described in current leaks and rumors wouldn't just require an online connection for features like online multiplayer or streaming video or leaderboards. This system would extend the online requirement to traditionally single-player games that don't currently need any online connection at all.

We suppose we could envision some sort of ad-subsidized console that requires an Internet connection to show marketing messages in exchange for free or cheap hardware and software. Perhaps having a guarantee that every player is always online could let some games provide handy, aggregate gameplay data to other players, even in single-player mode. Other than these limited examples, though, it's hard to envision any sort of online requirement that is actually an improvement over the kind of online options that are currently available in countless games, at least from the player's perspective.

Of course, from the publisher's point of view, an always-online console brings plenty of benefits, from anti-piracy authentication to player monitoring and data collection to simple marketing opportunities. But "clear benefits" to the player? Maybe we're just not being imaginative enough...

Promoted Comments

I have been thinking, and I can't think of a value-add that makes always-online consoles acceptable. Outside of multiplayer, which obviously requires a network connection, what can the online connection deliver that you can't do on the console side?

It doesn't even look like these guys are aware of legit reasons why gamers may not have a constant internet connection.

I know at least 2 people from work who lives in rural area with unstable internet. One of them uses direct line of sight wireless connection, which of course drops whenever there's rain or snow, or blizzard.

I work in the Ottawa area, it seems like Ubisoft didn't even bother consulting people in their own backyard before making that comment.

196 Reader Comments

Well at least he is being reasonable in saying that it should also benefit customers and not only the mega corporations. However, personally speaking, if I download a game on my phone and it requires me to be online to play, I immediately delete it on principle.

So, everyone with guts to tell us their intentions is saying we're ready live with a big bias and think everyone under the sky has access to a permanent and reliable internet connection.. aha.. tell me more

There's no consumer benefit to an always-online device (possibly with the exception of smartphones, but only because they embody impatience). The only measurable benefit is to producers with a neurotic anxiety over piracy. All this will do is alienate consumers who could just barely afford the console in the first place, since they're unlikely to be paying top-dollar for a fancy internet connection.

These CEOs need to leave their ivory towers once in a while to get a better understanding of how the rest of us live.

I have been thinking, and I can't think of a value-add that makes always-online consoles acceptable. Outside of multiplayer, which obviously requires a network connection, what can the online connection deliver that you can't do on the console side?

As someone with an always available high bandwidth connection, I can proudly say that I'll never pay one cent to support this company, or any that share it's perspective, out of principle.

I still can't believe how many sheep actually pay for games that use Uplay...

The golden age of gaming has long been over. The age of the n00b has begun.

p.s. I really enjoy having to remember my steam credentials and my Uplay credentials to play a single player game that was so poorly ported to PC that it made my dead relatives cry. Thanks Ubisoft, it really taught me a valuable life lesson.

It's an interesting dynamic that's showing itself here. Some folks in the game industry keep trying to defend this "always connected" idea by saying "well people are always connected on their computers & phones anyway," and they keep trying to misdirect the issue to "people are worried that they won't be able to play if their connection goes out."

That's not the issue at all, people don't want "always connected" built into their game consoles because they know it's just a DRM sneak tactic. Game companies are pro-always connected because it will let them check on people, make sure they aren't modding their own hardware or otherwise tweaking with the machine.

I wonder what the numbers are, as far as gamers who are concerned about connection reliability vs gamers who just don't want Big Brother tactics.

I have been thinking, and I can't think of a value-add that makes always-online consoles acceptable. Outside of multiplayer, which obviously requires a network connection, what can the online connection deliver that you can't do on the console side?

The part that gets me is that even thought they can build benefits for the consumer, the primary benefit is still to 'the industy'

Should there be games that are always online? Sure.

Is that a policy that should be mandated for every type of game ever going forward? No. That's a stupid idea.

Its a problem in the core design of the game. Does making it 'always online' versus 'always online with an offline option' to just 'offline only' benefit the gameplay?

At the end of the day it still feels like all thats being added is a major plus to the gaming industry by turning games into a service and controlling our use, while only adding minor benefits to the user to justify (leaderboards! auto-patching! enhanced customized user experience!)

There's no consumer benefit to an always-online device (possibly with the exception of smartphones, but only because they embody impatience). The only measurable benefit is to producers with a neurotic anxiety over piracy. All this will do is alienate consumers who could just barely afford the console in the first place, since they're unlikely to be paying top-dollar for a fancy internet connection.

These CEOs need to leave their ivory towers once in a while to get a better understanding of how the rest of us live.

I have been thinking, and I can't think of a value-add that makes always-online consoles acceptable. Outside of multiplayer, which obviously requires a network connection, what can the online connection deliver that you can't do on the console side?

The problem isn't wanting to NOT be online all the time, it is when people are kicked offline, their single player games are hosed. Know what I do when my internet goes out? I get off the PC and pull out my old Wii or something and play some games. I am not much of a gamer, but if this "last resort" is taken away as my internet goes out then I'll just do something else, and not buy an always online console.

As of now, what does always-on do for me other than waste my bandwidth that Comcast keeps shrinking every chance they can?

I completely agree. I'm not even going to get into all the possible scenarios where a required continuous internet connection isn't feasible... what about those of us who just don't want an 'always on' console? Frankly you're just not getting any of our money

The *only* benefits that I can think of are automatic download of patches and updates at some off hour (like 4am in the morning) so you don't have to download those annoying patches when all you want to do is play. Again, though, that should be optional, not mandatory. Or maybe, because you are online, you can start a download of a game or update through your phone on the bus or from work and have it sent to the box in your house. Again, optional, not mandatory.

I don't even get why DRM needs an always-on connection. I can grasp that they want anti-piracy measures, but what's wrong with synchronizing like Steam does it. And unlike PCs, consoles are closed systems without root privileges, that makes it seem even more reasonable and safe.For that matter, I can't imagine anything that would benefit a corporation, that needs always-on over a service that only needs to be synchronized once in a while - and if it does, it is poor design.

Not even Google believes in always-on. (cfr. Android keeping an offline back-up of most things I need, because "well duh".)

Sigh... Anyone in the gaming industry who says we're 'ready for always online...' should just be shot. I have games on my laptop that I play in the airport, that I play on the train, that I play whenever... But what I don't always have is a persistent, online connection available just in the normal course of the day.

Never mind all the times my idiot ISP fouls things up and I'll be off-line for days because some clown turned off the wrong connection during a disconnect... Or the cable goes down because we had a thunderstorm, heavy rain or just friggin' 'because...'

So being able to play these games, that I freaking paid for, without an Internet connection is great.

The *only* benefits that I can think of are automatic download of patches and updates at some off hour (like 4am in the morning) so you don't have to download those annoying patches when all you want to do is play. Again, though, that should be optional, not mandatory. Or maybe, because you are online, you can start a download of a game or update through your phone on the bus or from work and have it sent to the box in your house. Again, optional, not mandatory.

That's a benefit of being connected to the internet.

I don't think I've seen a consumer benefit of a required connection to the internet.

10 GB /month. That's my lot where I live. That has to encompass email, web surfing, youtube clips, windows updates, video driver updates, dlc, ....everything. I also get over 1 second latency due to the fact that my only option here is satellite.

Microsoft's xbox marketplace already refuses to operate if you use a satellite ISP.

Between microsoft's online service not actually working on a satellite internet connection and, even if it did, I expect that my bandwidth constraints would be eaten alive in a couple days of being connected persistently, there's just no possibility that the neXbox could be made to function within the infrastructure available to my household.

So, to sum up: F*ck, M$. F*ck Mr Orth. F*ck Blizzard (D3). F*ck Ubisoft. And F*ck EA (who I strongly suspect are going to announce they're going to be publishing all their future games console exclusive, or timed exclusive, to the nexBox)

It doesn't even look like these guys are aware of legit reasons why gamers may not have a constant internet connection.

I know at least 2 people from work who lives in rural area with unstable internet. One of them uses direct line of sight wireless connection, which of course drops whenever there's rain or snow, or blizzard.

I work in the Ottawa area, it seems like Ubisoft didn't even bother consulting people in their own backyard before making that comment.

Well, the always-on console is an ideal foot-in-the-door for could services. Imaginne your computers, your phone, your tablet, all using the NAS service (even by something as crude as drop box) on your console.

Currently, the convergence image I've seen is for DLNA, and DLNA only. But move things to the cloud and then you have a reason to always keep it on. Imagine your playstation being a proxy for your phone for all the unfriendly cellular needs: torrents, VMs and all that. Heck the Playstation could be part of your Ubuntu Mobile platform. Once you get home, it integrates with your Ubuntu Phone via Wifi.

We're moving away from actual computers to phones tablets and even for those on laptops, they are more often used as thin clients. The convergence is about to enter a second age. The Console will the the convergence center. Again.

Meanwhile our devices get more tiered. This is where watches and google glass will take us. Our phones will be de-emphasized, and will just become like base stations for smaller gadgets

I have been thinking, and I can't think of a value-add that makes always-online consoles acceptable. Outside of multiplayer, which obviously requires a network connection, what can the online connection deliver that you can't do on the console side?

Ads.

I stopped paying for Gold a long time ago, but it seemed like the dashboard had more and more ads all the time. I did not feel like I was getting more/better content thanks to ad subsidies, but just more ads. This just seems like an additional revenue stream for console makers, perhaps it will allow them to sell consoles at more of a loss to entice more users, but in the end it will just be an additional revenue stream. Putting my MS shoes on, this seems like a great idea to tell investors that you are providing a GaaS (game as a service) with continuous revenue streams. And as long as people keep buying the games why would they possibly change direction.

I know at least 2 people from work who lives in rural area with unstable internet. One of them uses direct line of sight wireless connection, which of course drops whenever there's rain or snow, or blizzard.

Well, the always-on console is an ideal foot-in-the-door for could services. Imaginne your computers, your phone, your tablet, all using the NAS service (even by something as crude as drop box) on your console.

Currently, the convergence image I've seen is for DLNA, and DLNA only. But move things to the cloud and then you have a reason to always keep it on. Imagine your playstation being a proxy for your phone for all the unfriendly cellular needs: torrents, VMs and all that. Heck the Playstation could be part of your Ubuntu Mobile platform. Once you get home, it integrates with your Ubuntu Phone via Wifi.

We're moving away from actual computers to phones tablets and even for those on laptops, they are more often used as thin clients. The convergence is about to enter a second age. The Console will the the convergence center.

Meanwhile our devices get more tiered. This is where watches and google glass will take us. Our phones will be de-emphasized, and will just become like base stations for smaller gadgets

Not a single word of this makes any kind of case for having a required always-on connection to play games.

Kyle Orland / Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area.